Other groups, including the Coalition To Save Marriage In New York, are expected to join the lawsuit against Paterson, who this week revealed a directive he issued in mid-May to state agencies telling them to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and nations.

Advocates say Paterson is well within his legal rights to make the move, and the state started offering health benefits last year to gay couples in state and local governments.

“What the governor did is in no way radical or stepping out ahead of the state,” said Susan Sommer, a lawyer with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. “What the governor is doing is simply following what is now very well established law.”

Paterson has used the same argument, saying that the state would be liable if he didn’t recognize same-sex marriage when it comes to state workers and state policies.

“What I’m trying to do is to accommodate the fact that if I didn’t take action, I would leave these state open to lawsuits. I would open the state treasury open to monetary damages,” Paterson said yesterday. “And I would be discriminating against individuals who come here from other jurisdictions.”

The governor’s communications director Risa Heller has not returned calls seeking comment on the pending lawsuit.

New Yorkers should be proud of Gov. David Paterson’s efforts to assure basic civil rights for same-sex couples married outside the state. Now, the State Legislature should prove its own commitment to equality and justice by granting gay couples the right to marry in New York State.

Mr. Paterson has directed state agencies to respond to a recent court ruling by reviewing more than 1,300 state policies that affect married people. He wants to ensure that New York fully recognizes all legal marriage licenses, including those granted to gay couples in places like Massachusetts, Canada, South Africa and soon, California.

If that sounds like mere paper shuffling in Albany, it is not. It means that New Yorkers who marry in San Francisco or Montreal can return home knowing that their rights will be protected. That is progress, especially since many states have specifically outlawed even the recognition of same-sex marriages granted legally elsewhere.

Despite the growing political outcry, Mr. Paterson is on firm legal, as well as moral, ground.

For more than a century, New York has recognized marriage contracts from other states — even if those couples could not legally marry in New York. New York does not grant licenses for common law marriages, but if such marriages are legal elsewhere, they are recognized in New York. In February, a New York State appeals court ruled unanimously that this “marriage recognition rule” also had to apply to any same-sex couple with a legal marriage license obtained elsewhere.

While most Democrats in Albany have pushed for legislation to legalize gay marriage, most Republicans have argued that it is enough to adjust state laws to make them more equitable for same-sex couples. These half-measures have not worked.

The New York City Bar Association and Empire State Pride Agenda last year identified more than 1,300 aspects of New York State law that either deny rights to gay couples or make their lives far more complicated.

There are cases of one partner being denied access to a mate’s hospital room. People who have spent their adult lives together without the benefit of a marriage license can be compelled to testify against each other. Benefits for survivors from workers’ compensation go only to a legally recognized spouse.

After one of the most vigorous and emotional floor debates in recent Albany history, the Democratic-controlled Assembly has passed a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry in New York. The Republican-controlled Senate has refused, so far, to act.

Governor Paterson has worked hard to promote comity in Albany — we fear at the cost of many essential reforms. He should use his influence with the Republican Senate leader, Joseph Bruno, to get the Assembly version of the marriage bill passed this year.

No matter their sexual orientation, New Yorkers should have the same fundamental right to marry. Governor Paterson has taken an important first step, but it is not enough. Now he needs to persuade the rest of Albany to do what is fair.

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution on May 22 to ban same-sex marriage, a result of the backlash by lawmakers upset with the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling legalizing gay marriage.

U.S. Rep. Paul Brown (R-Ga.) introduced legislation to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. (Photo by AP) Broun, a freshman Congressman from Augusta, announced his intent to introduce the legislation on May 20 and got 29 co-sponsors to join him in introducing the bill, named the Marriage Protection Amendment. Other Georgians who have signed on as co-sponsors are Republicans Lynn Westmoreland and John Linder.

One co-sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), said in a statement posted on his website May 28 he was joining Broun as a co-sponsor because, “The recent decision by the California Supreme Court to overturn the state’s ban on homosexual marriage is an assault on the Judeo-Christian values of America.

“While North Carolina and numerous other states are fortunate to have strong marriage laws in place, these state laws are not immune from legal efforts to redefine marriage,” Jones said. “To ensure the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Congress needs to pass an amendment to our Constitution that no activist judge can overturn.”

Before it could become part of the Constitution, the amendment would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the U.S. House and Senate, and then ratified by 38, or three-fourths, of the state legislatures.

Other co-sponsors of the bill, all Republicans, are: Reps. Tom Feeney of Florida; Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania; John Shimkus of Illinois; Tim Walberg, Peter Hoekstra and Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan; Brian Bilbray and Duncan Hunter of California; Dan Burton of Indiana; Trent Franks of Arizona; Barbara Cubin of Wyoming; Todd Akin of Missouri; John Peterson of Pennsylvania; Ralph Hall of Texas; Scott Garrett of New Jersey; Henry Brown of South Carolina; Virgil Goode of Virginia; Virginia Foxx and Robin Hayes of North Carolina; Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland; Mark Souder of Indiana; Robert Anderholt of Alabama, Jeff Miller of Florida, Steve King of Iowa; and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma

Friday, May 30, 2008

How telling is this. Why are the states worried if they think DOMA covers them. They obviously know that "full faith and credit trumps". It validate the full faith and credit clause in our constitution. ms

10 states ask Calif. to stay marriage ruling

The attorneys general of 10 states are urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage. The attorneys general say in court documents filed Thursday that they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California.

They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election, when voters are likely to decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is urging the court not to grant the stay.

The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah. (AP)

Robert Voorheis, left, and Michael Sabatino of Yonkers were married in Canada in 2003. (Seth Harrison/The Journal News)

Gays and gay-rights advocates in the Lower Hudson Valley reacted with delight yesterday to a gubernatorial directive mandating that state agencies recognize gay marriages performed in other states and countries.

A spokeswoman announced Wednesday that Gov. David Paterson was issuing the order based on a court ruling from earlier this year.

Yonkers resident Michael Sabatino said he was "elated" when he heard the news.

Sabatino and Robert Voorheis were married in Canada five years ago and have been fighting since then to get their marriage recognized in New York. The couple have been together for 30 years and own a home together.

"We're glad that they're upholding this in New York state," Sabatino, who works as a regional sales manager, said yesterday. "It's not gay marriage, not same-sex marriage, it's marriage. I think that's one of the things that we need to educate people on."

State agencies, including those governing insurance and health care, must immediately change policies and regulations to make sure "spouse," "husband" and "wife" are clearly understood to include gay couples, according to a memo sent earlier this month from the governor's counsel.

Gay marriage is not legal in New York, and the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has said it can only be legalized by the Legislature. But the memo, based on a Feb. 1 New York Appellate Division court ruling, would recognize the marriages of New Yorkers who are legally wed elsewhere.

People in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and their advocates hope that this step will lead to greater strides.

Phyllis Frank, executive director of the VCS Community Change Project and organizer of the annual Gay Pride Rockland events, said she expected that the community would react with "enormous affirmation" to the news.

People will say that "step by step, piece by piece, in our lifetime - which some of us thought would never happen -we will see the total and complete acceptance by the state, the government, of same-sex marriage," she said, adding of Paterson, "Bless him!"

A statement issued Wednesday by Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, the state's largest gay and lesbian lobbying group, praised the move by Paterson but called for full equity.

"Despite this great news, our families are still not fully equal in the eyes of the law. We strongly believe that LGBT New Yorkers should not have to leave their home state to get a valid marriage license," Capelle said.

Not everyone was welcoming of the change.

The Rev. Duane Motley of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms said the Democratic governor was circumventing the Legislature and courts and slapping New Yorkers in the face.

Granting government benefits to gay couples will come at a cost to the state even as Paterson calls for cuts in spending because of looming deficits, Motley said.

The Rev. Allen Kemp, pastor of Suffern Presbyterian Church, said he didn't think the move was a good idea "from a biblical point of view."

Kemp's church is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA) denomination, which bases its opinion of the issue upon biblical teachings. Although there is now a movement to legalize gay marriage within the denomination, Kemp said, "I don't think that'll happen, because if we're going to keep our ties to Scripture, then Scripture really defines marriages (as) between a man and a woman."

Nyack's Mayor John Shields' advice to opponents of gay marriage was this: "I would say to them that they have to get over it, that it's not a religious issue, it's a civil issue."

People who live in and abide by the principles of a democratic society deserve the same rights as everyone else, he said.

"Liberty and justice for all without exception," Shields said.

James Young said he hoped that gay marriage in the state is imminent. He and his partner, Jonathan Hornig, had a civil union ceremony in Vermont in 2002. The Lake Peekskill couple also were, as Young puts it, "unlegally married in New Paltz."

While it is expected that the state's new mandate will send some same-sex New York couples rushing to Canada - or to California when that state begins to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on June 17 - Young won't be one of them.

He prefers to remain in New York and "push the envelope" until gay marriage is legalized in this state.

"I think it's a great time for this information to come out because ... Gay Pride Month is June and Rockland has its gay pride events on June 8 and so we have to celebrate these small victories, and also realize that this isn't the end-all, be-all, and we have to continue fighting for gay rights," Young said.

The debate over gay marriage has led to a re-examination of the role of clergy in performing weddings as a legal arm of the state.

Some clergy are asking why in the matter of marriage only they have to sign a legal document. Some see the question in terms of the gay marriage debate and say they won't sign marriage certificates until gay couples can legally marry.

Religion's role is to bless a marriage, the state's role is to ensure observance of legal rights, they say. Clergy should bow out of their role as agents of the state entirely, said a religious leader who has stopped signing marriage certificates.

"The term 'sanctity of marriage' implies marriage is an inherently religious ceremony and it's not," said Jay Johnson, senior director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley. "The president of the United States has no business talking about marriage as a religious act."

The significance of the marriage certificate compels attention in light of this month's California Supreme Court decision striking down the state's prohibition of same-sex marriage. The ruling takes effect June 16. Opponents have gathered more than 1.1 million signatures to qualify a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage for the California ballot in November.

Some spiritual leaders may have stopped signing marriage certificates as an act of protest, but "that's a temporary thing," Johnson said. "Others just won't do it anymore regardless. There are just lots and lots of clergy who are uncomfortable with being agents of the state, because these are very different sorts of things."

Like Johnson, several clergymen and women in Minnesota's Twin Cities have opted not to sign marriage certificates , according to the Bilerico Project, a gay rights organization and blog. "We're in the blessings business, not the wedding business," says the Rev. Anita C. Hill of St. Paul Reformation Lutheran Church in the Bilerico blog.

"I think the need to untangle civil marriage and the rights associated with it from religious blessing is an important step to moving towards full marriage equality in our country," said South Florida editor Waymon Hudson, president of Fight OUT Loud, a national organization that advocates protection against hate crime and discrimination.

Hudson and his partner plan to travel to San Francisco this summer to marry.

"Our country's idea of marriage is completely too intertwined with religion, which is why we have fallen behind other countries in the world when it comes to marriage equality," he said. "Spain, one of the most Catholic countries in the world, allows same sex marriage because they are able to separate the religious aspect from the civil contract, something our society is unwilling or unable to do."

Much of the world disagrees with what Hudson calls marriage equality, said a spokesman for the California Family Council.

"For many religious individuals who hold marriage to be between a man and a woman, that is a religious belief and character," said legislative coordinator Everett Rice.

"As a historic or traditional understanding it has always been understood in law that marriage is specifically between a man and a woman. Some folks may have issues with religion, but the discussion is not just relegated to religious perspective, and that's not just in the U.S. and Canada, it's around the globe."

"Marriage between a man and a woman is a Biblical institution," said Robert Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, the legal arm behind Proposition 22. "Someone who says it is a wholly legal institution must be someone who doesn't read the Bible. Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles."

Johnson countered that the idea that marriage unites a couple who love each other and wish to make a life together is about 300 years old. The church has been solemnizing marriages since the 12th century, and the nation's Puritan forbears did not practice a religious marriage ceremony, he said.

"There's a real complex history that gets flattened out in the context of the public policy debate," he said.

Some religious leaders say since they are not lawyers, judges, civil servants or elected officials, they should not be asked to perform a civic role.

In some instances, religion routinely intrudes in civic life — newly elected officials taking the oath of office on a Bible, for instance.

But in no other task a cleric performs is there a legal aspect, said the Rev. Scott Landis of Mission Hills United Church of Christ. "Even though there are legal aspects to burial, for instance, I don't sign anything that says I oversaw the dispensation of the body," he said. "I don't sign a death certificate.

"I still believe marriage is a function of the state that the church blesses," Landis said. "I don't know why we have to sign (marriage certificates) at all other than I officiated over their ceremony. But I don't care to be involved in a legal function."

Regardless the faith, each tradition has a different take on the meaning of marriage, Johnson said. "Those religious meanings don't necessarily match up with the state's civil contract of marriage," he said.

"The whole purpose of getting a civil contract is to make it clear what the conditions are for breaking the contract. In most religious traditions there are no conditions in which the covenant can be dissolved."

After discovering yesterday that Governor David Paterson had directed state agencies to recognize same-sex unions from out of state, State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno threatened to sue to stop him. Bruno and opponents to Paterson's latest move claim that he is trying to bypass the Legislature on the gay-marriage issue. "If necessary, we will test it legally," Bruno told the Daily News. "Really, it looks like he's doing an end-run around the Legislature," said Republican Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco. But Tedisco must have a short memory, because gay marriage was actually approved by his legislative body in June of last year, when it voted 85-61 to approve a bill launched by former governor Eliot Spitzer. It's unknown how the same bill would have fared in the GOP-controlled Senate, because Bruno would not let it come to a vote. He called it "dead on arrival" the minute it passed through the Assembly into his hands. It's a cowardly tactic used all too frequently in Albany, on both sides of the aisle (remember when Sheldon Silver wouldn't put congestion pricing to a vote?). By refusing to put a contentious bill to a vote, party leaders can kill measures that are outside of their agenda while protecting individual legislators from having to take controversial stances and alienate their constituents. But it effectively takes power out of their own hands, too. So when Bruno complains that Paterson has taken the Legislature out of the equation, he really only has himself to blame. The State Senate would have had their chance to voice an opinion (positive or negative) on gay marriage, were it not for Bruno.

Now Bruno has suggested introducing a Defense of Marriage Act to legally reverse Paterson's mandate. But he knows well that it will never get through the Assembly (they overwhelmingly approved gay marriage just last year, remember?). It's just another blustery move to make it seem like he is in favor of legislative process.

According to the Times, legal challenges to Paterson's order face an uphill battle. But if today's headlines are anything to go by, that won't slow the public outcry against it. After all, in politics, what you say is more important than what you do, right?

HOPEFUL: Cathy (left) and Sheila Marino-Thomas, who were legally wed in Massachusetts, hope their union will be recognized in New York

By SAMUEL GOLDSMITH

May 30, 2008 -- Married lesbians Cathy and Sheila Marino-Thomas said yesterday that Gov. Paterson's directive forcing state agencies to recognize same-sex unions is a "big win" for them.

Honoring marriages from other states lets couples like Cathy and Sheila - who live in Manhattan but were legally married in Massachusetts five years ago - to file joint tax returns and provides other benefits under state laws that heterosexuals receive.

But tax advantages are just part of the benefits for same-sex couples, Cathy Marino-Thomas said. More importantly, the decision is a step toward equal rights for same-sex couples.

"This is a glorious day for equality," said Marino-Thomas, director of Marriage Equality New York. "This opens the door that has been closed to same-sex couples.

"Hopefully this will mean that in time more than just state employees can receive benefits," she said.

The Marino-Thomases believe the governor's move will force the private sector in New York to update its benefits for same-sex couples.

"It will urge our state to step away from the unequal and move to the table of equality," she said. "We will begin to be recognized as families. That's a big win."

Other same-sex couples in the city agreed.

"In day-to-day life, maybe this won't benefit us," said Robert Voorheis. "But it makes us feel better that the law is now protecting us."

Mr Bruno has his fact wrong. He need to read the Appeals court ruling again. The ruling says...........

The Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled in 2006 that the State Constitution does not require the state to allow same-sex couples to marry. The court also made clear, however, that the Constitution does not prohibit such marriages.

That legal balancing act, according to a unanimous decision in the Martinez case by the Rochester court, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, means that the state must follow the usual rule and recognize out-of-state marriages.

“The Legislature may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad,” Justice Erin M. Peradotto wrote for the court. “Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York.”

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Opposition surfaced Thursday against Gov. David Paterson's directive to state agencies to recognize gay marriages legally performed in other states and countries.

The Rev. Duane Motley of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms said the Democrat "slapped the people in the face by circumventing their representatives," while New York's Catholic bishops said "just as the state cannot declare a man to be a 'mother' or a woman to be a 'father,' it can not declare a same-sex union to be a 'marriage."

Paterson issued a memo earlier this month saying that gay New Yorkers who marry where it is legal will have the right to share family health care plans, receive tax breaks by filing jointly, enjoy stronger adoption rights and inherit property.

Paterson cited a February ruling in a New York Appellate Division court in which the judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage.

While gay rights advocates hailed the move, the feeling was not unanimous.

State Senate Republican Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, who opposes gay marriage, questioned the constitutionality of Paterson's action, but said in a Thursday morning news conference that he hadn't yet seen the memo.

Bruno said he was surprised when he read news reports about the memo and plans to speak to Paterson. Bruno also noted the state's highest court has found gay marriage isn't legal within the state. The high court hasn't yet taken up the issue of whether gay marriages performed legally out of state are valid in New York.

"You have to understand that the court, the highest court here in New York state, made it very very clear that the only union that is legal in New York state, to perform a marriage ceremony, is between a man and a woman," Bruno said, citing a 2006 Court or Appeals ruling.

State Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long said Paterson should allow gay marriages to be recognized only if the Legislature legalizes gay marriage.

"The California judges overturned the will of the California people and Governor Paterson is apparently trying to do the same thing in New York," he said.

Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage in the nation's most populous state is legal. The ruling overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

Paterson defended himself Thursday, saying: "This is not an end run around the Legislature. I am following the law as it always has existed."

He said failure to issue the directive would leave the state open to lawsuits claiming the state deprived gay couples of civil rights enjoyed in other states.

Of his critics claiming the action is unconstitutional, Paterson said they "should get a little better informed."

Massachusetts is currently the only U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but its residency requirements would bar New Yorkers from marrying there.

Canada is among the nations where gay marriage is legal. In California, gay couples will be able to wed beginning June 17 — unless that state's Supreme Court decides to stay its own ruling.

In a video shown at the Empire State Pride Agenda's spring dinner on Saturday, the governor said he directed the state agency measures as "a strong step toward marriage equality right here in our state."

"This is a milestone in the fight for fairness in New York," New York Civil Liberties Union executive director Donna Lieberman said in a statement. "Couples in New York who have never known true security for their families will be officially entitled to treatment by our state government that respects their rights."

Last year, the Democrat-led Assembly passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, but the Senate didn't take up the bill. A vote in the Senate is considered even less likely this year, a legislative election year in which the Republicans are hoping to cling to its majority by appealing in part to its more conservative base.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Here’s the video in which David Paterson announced same-sex marriages performed in other states will be recognized in New York. It was presented at the May 17 Empire State Pride Agenda fund-raiser in Rochester (and just posted on YouTube yesterday).

At about the 2:20 mark, Paterson says, “I am directing agency heads that we will recognize marriages conducted outside our state right here in New York State.”

With his characteristic humor, Paterson ends the five-and-a-half minute video by saying, “I am David Paterson and I approve this message. Nobody made me make this message. Nobody cajoled or coerced me into giving these thoughts.”

And here is the text of Paterson’s May 14 memo to agency heads with the same instructions:

To: All Agency Counsel

From: David Nocenti

Date: May 14, 2008

Re: Martinez decision on same-sex marriages

As you probably are aware, on February 1, 2008, the Fourth Department issued a decision in Martinez v. County of Monroe, 850 N.Y.S.2d 740 (4th Dep’t 2008) that has significant implications for the position of state agencies in regard to same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions where they are legally recognized. Defendants’ motion for leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals on Thursday, May 8, 2008, on the grounds that the order appealed from was not final.

In Martinez, the Fourth Department held that legal same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions are “entitled to recognition in New York in the absence of express legislation to the contrary.” This decision is consistent with the holdings of several lower courts. See, e.g., Godfrey v. Spano, 15 Misc.3d 809 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cty. 2007), appeal pending (2d Dep’t); Godfrey v. Hevesi, 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6589 (Sup. Ct. Albany Cty. Sept. 5, 2007). The Martinez court also found that the failure to recognize such marriages may violate the New York Human Rights Law.

In light of these decisions, agencies that do not afford comity or full faith and credit to same-sex marriages that are legally performed in other jurisdictions could be subject to liability. In addition, extension of such recognition is consistent with State policy. In April 2007, the Department of Civil Service extended recognition to same-sex spouses in legal marriages from other jurisdictions for purposes of spousal benefits under the New York Health Insurance Program. Moreover, the Third Department recently dismissed an appeal from a decision that had upheld the prior policy of non-recognition as moot, citing Martinez in vacating the lower court decision. Funderburke v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Civil Service, 854 N.Y.S.2d 466 (2d Dep’t 2008).

As a result of the above, it is now timely to conduct a review of your agency’s policy statements and regulations, and those statutes whose construction is vested in your agency, to ensure that terms such as “spouse,” “husband” and “wife” are construed in a manner that encompasses legal same-sex marriages, unless some other provision of law would bar your ability to do so. A compendium of New York State statutes and regulations that use these terms, prepared by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the Empire State Pride Agenda Foundation, may be helpful in performing this review. A copy of this report is available at http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/marriage_v7d21.pdf.

In many instances, comity can be extended to legal same-sex marriages through an internal memorandum or policy statement directing staff on the construction of relevant terms in statute or regulation. In other cases, regulatory changes may be necessary.

Currently, same-sex marriages are legal in Canada, South Africa, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Massachusetts. Some decisional law in Massachusetts has called into question whether individuals domiciled in states where same-sex marriage is not legally recognized may marry in Massachusetts. Nonetheless, when a Massachusetts official vested with legal authority, such as a clerk, has recognized such marriage, it should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.

Please follow up with me, in writing, by June 30, 2008, to indicate what actions you have taken in response to this memo, and any potential legal problems that have come to your attention.

Thank you for your assistance, and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

May 29, 2008New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere By JEREMY W. PETERSALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

“Very shortly, there will be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, and probably thousands and thousands and thousands of gay people who have their marriages recognized by the state,” said Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and has pushed for legalization of gay unions.

Massachusetts and California are the only states that have legalized gay marriage, while others, including New Jersey and Vermont, allow civil unions. Forty-one states have laws limiting marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Legal experts said Mr. Paterson’s decision would make New York the only state that did not itself allow gay marriage but fully recognized same-sex unions entered into elsewhere.

The directive is the strongest signal yet that Mr. Paterson, who developed strong ties to the gay community as a legislator, plans to push aggressively to legalize same-sex unions as governor. His predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, introduced a bill last year that would have legalized gay marriage, but even as he submitted it, doubted that it would pass. The Democratic-dominated Assembly passed the measure, but the Republican-led Senate has refused to call a vote on it.

Short of an act by the Legislature, the directive ordered by Mr. Paterson is the one of the strongest statements a state can make in favor of gay unions.

“Basically we’ve done everything we can do on marriage legislatively at this point,” said Sean Patrick Maloney, a senior adviser to Mr. Paterson. “But there are tools in our tool kit on the executive side, and this is one.”

The directive cited a Feb. 1 ruling by a State Appellate Court in Rochester that Patricia Martinez, who works at Monroe Community College and who married her partner in Canada, could not be denied health benefits by the college because of New York’s longstanding policy of recognizing marriages performed elsewhere, even if they are not explicitly allowed under New York law. The appeals court said that New York must recognize marriages performed in other states that allow the practice and in countries that permit it, like Canada and Spain.

Monroe County filed an appeal with the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, but it was rejected on technical grounds. The county has not decided whether to file another appeal, a county spokesman said on Wednesday. The Court of Appeals has previously ruled that the state’s Constitution did not compel the recognition of same-sex marriages and that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether do so.

Groups that oppose gay marriage said the governor was essentially trying to circumvent the Legislature.

“It’s a perfect example of a governor overstepping his authority and sidestepping the democratic process,” said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization opposed to same-sex marriage. “It’s an issue of public policy that should be decided by the voters.”

Gay rights advocates, however, applauded Mr. Paterson, saying the broad directive would make it clear that gay couples wed in other states were entitled to all of the benefits of marriage in New York and relieve them of the burden of challenging or suing individual agencies.

“He saw no reason to stand in the way of making sure these couples benefit from the rights and protections that come with marriage,” said Susan Sommer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a group that advocates for gay rights. “It shouldn’t be the burden of each lesbian or gay couple to have to advocate before an agency every time a new issue comes up.”

In the directive, Mr. Nocenti wrote that state agencies should review all rules and regulations to determine whether they conflict with recognition of same-sex marriages and report back to him by June 30. Mr. Nocenti said that state agencies that did not provide “full faith and credit to same-sex marriages” could be subject to liability.

He said that many changes could be made through internal memos or policy statements, but that regulatory changes might be needed in some cases.

Mr. Nocenti directed agency heads to a list of state regulations and statutes that were likely to need overhaul, including measures affecting a spouse’s ability to collect a deceased spouse’s pension and to continue to use public housing.

In addition to conferring more rights on gay couples, the changes might also require more responsibilities. For example, the order that required certain employees of the executive branch to file financial disclosure documents for their spouses would also apply to gay spouses.

It is less clear what the directive means for state policies that are not enforced by state agencies but by the courts, like those that govern child custody or protect a husband and wife from having to testify against one another about statements they made to each other while married.

Coincidentally, Mr. Nocenti’s directive was dated one day before the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Gay marriage proponents said they expected that ruling, which will take effect in mid-June unless the court grants a stay, will lead some gay couples in New York to marry in California so they can take advantage of the protections under New York law.

Of course, many gay New Yorkers might find Canada to be a more convenient option, some gay rights supporters pointed out. Mr. Nocenti also said that marriages performed in Massachusetts should be recognized in New York, though Massachusetts, unlike California, does not permit gay residents from other states to be married there if their home state prohibits same-sex unions.

While gay rights advocates widely praised the spirit of Mr. Paterson’s policy, some saw more than a little irony in the fact that New York has yet to allow gays to marry.

“If you’re going to treat us as equals, why don’t you just give us the marriage license?” said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda. “So this is a temporary but necessary fix for a longer-term problem, which is marriage equality in New York State.”

SACRAMENTO – A new poll finds that for the first time in the state's history, a slim majority of voters supports same-sex marriage, which the state Supreme Court declared legal this month.

According to the nonpartisan Field Poll, 51 percent of California registered voters favor allowing same-sex couples to marry, 42 percent are opposed and 7 percent have no opinion.Support for same-sex marriage has steadily increased during the 30 years that the Field Poll has surveyed voters on the issue. But this is the first time more voters expressed support than opposition.

“This is in many ways a historic poll,” said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. “It's a very significant moment.”

The poll also found voters are not inclined to support an amendment to the California Constitution banning same-sex marriage, such as the one targeted for the November ballot. Only 40 percent of those surveyed said they favored such a measure, 54 percent were opposed and 6 percent had no opinion.

The survey showed big differences in opinion on keeping same-sex marriage legal. Supporters include younger voters, Democrats, liberals and residents of Los Angeles or the San Francisco Bay Area. Opposed were older voters, Republicans, conservatives, residents of the Central Valley and Southern California counties besides Los Angeles, including San Diego and Orange counties.

Women and men support allowing same-sex marriage, though men less so. Women are in favor, 53 percent to 39 percent, with 8 percent having no opinion. Support among men is 48 percent to 44 percent, with 8 percent having no opinion.

In 2006, the last Field Poll on the issue, 44 percent approved of same-sex marriage and 50 percent disapproved.

Since then, several things have happened.

In 2007, the Legislature passed for a second time a law approving same-sex marriage, which was again vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. For years, California had already allowed same-sex couples to register in domestic partnerships that confer many of the same rights and responsibilities that go with marriage.

Last fall, a gay-rights group, Equality California, conducted a campaign that included television and Internet advertising along with house parties in support of making same-sex marriage legal.

Most significant, the state Supreme Court on May 15 ruled 4-3 that statutes banning same-sex marriage violate the right to marry embodied in the state constitution.

The decision overturned a law passed by the Legislature in 1977 and Proposition 22 approved by 61 percent of California voters in 2000. The ruling made California the second state after Massachusetts to legalize same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages may begin in the state as early as June 14.

While some predicted a backlash from the court's decision, DiCamillo suggested the court might have helped increase support for same-sex marriage.

“The court is held in high esteem in California,” he said.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have gathered more than enough signatures to place their amendment on the ballot. The secretary of state's office is expected to determine next month whether the measure qualifies for the November ballot.

Opposition to the constitutional amendment in the new survey is in line with past polls, DiCamillo said.

In four surveys from 2003 to 2006, the Field Poll asked voters about a possible amendment to the U.S. Constitution limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Opposition registered between 50 percent and 54 percent with support topping out at 42 percent.

“People are reluctant to make constitutional changes,” DiCamillo said.

Results from the Field Poll contrasted with a poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times and KTLA last week showing slim majorities of voters disagreed with the Supreme Court's ruling and supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

DiCamillo declined comment on the Times poll.

Ron Prentice, spokesman for Protectmarriage.com, which is sponsoring the measure to ban same-sex marriage, said he believes the numbers from the Times poll.

“The public outcry from the court's overturning the majority vote of eight years ago suggests something altogether different from the statistics put forward by the Field Poll,” he said.

Dale Kelly Bankhead, chairman of the San Diego Center Advocacy Project, a gay-rights group, said she was “incredibly pleased” by the Field Poll and what it means for November.

“Californians have moved a long way on the issue,” she said. “We expect that they will reject the ballot measure to roll back the decision. Marriage equality and dignity for committed same-sex couples will be part of California's legacy.”

The Field Poll, conducted over nine days that ended on Monday, surveyed 1,052 voters with a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.

The Times poll, conducted during two days last week, was based on interviews with 705 registered voters with a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

Over time, more gays and lesbians have become open about their sexual orientation and several countries, including Canada, South Africa and Spain, have legalized same-sex marriage.

While California and Massachusetts have legalized same-sex marriage, many states have voted to ban it.

DiCamillo said he believes that the majority in favor of same-sex marriage will remain in California because the issue splits along generational lines.

For example, those between 18 and 29 are in favor, 68 percent to 25 percent, while those 65 or older are opposed, 55 percent to 36 percent, according to the poll.

Spending on gay marriage initiative likely to top $30 millionBy Malcolm Maclachlan (published Tuesday, May 27, 2008)California likely will play host this fall to an unprecedented political battle over gay marriage, as a looming ballot-initiative contest appears likely to force more than $30 million in total spending from the rival factions. Even though a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage has not yet made it onto the November ballot, both sides are already taking in big checks from familiar donors.

Adding fuel to the fire are a pair of dueling polls.

Last week, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll found a majority of voters opposed same-sex marriage. But a Field Poll released Wednesday appeared to show a sea change in public opinion on the issue, with roughly half of those surveyed in support of gay marriage. The poll suggests that a constitutional amendment could face a hard road this fall.

Andrew Pugno, an attorney for the Protect Marriage campaign, said his side plans on taking in between $10 million and $15 million -- "a little more than was raised and spent on Proposition 22," as he put it. That was the 2000 initiative stating "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It passed with 61 percent of the vote.

This would hardly be record-breaking money for California ballot initiatives, such as the $140 million fight over five amended tribal gaming compacts last year. Nonetheless, the potential spending is huge, Pugno said.

"These kinds of initiatives are different from an insurance industry or tribal gaming measure, where there's tons of money at stake," Pugno said. "Because it's a social issue, it tends to be more of a grassroots thing."

Steve Smith, campaign consultant for Equality for All, the main group on the "no" side of the proposed Protect Marriage initiative, said his group could raise as much as $20 million.

"We will have to at least match them dollar for dollar," Smith said.

Where's all this money going to come from? Oddly, the coalitions on each side look very similar in many ways. Each has a small number of extremely rich donors who were paying attention to this issue long before it was in the news on a regular basis, along with a few key organizations that largely sat out the last round of same-sex marriage fights in 2006. Each side is also taking in hundreds of smaller donations from individuals who will likely provide armies of ground troops working phones and walking precincts.

On the anti-same-sex marriage side, the donors are led by a pair of wealthy Southern California businessmen who are also evangelical Christians. Fieldstead & Co., the company owned by billionaire financier Howard Ahmanson, gave $400,000 in February and March to the committee behind The California Marriage Protection Act. Christian radio magnate Ed Atsinger has donated $12,500. Both live in Southern California. Each man gave $100,000 to back Prop. 22 in 2000.

Meanwhile, the Santa Ana-based National Organization for Marriage has packaged up $921,000 to pass the amendment. Colorado-based Focus on the Family has contributed $133,000. That group's founder and leader, James Dobson, is one of the leading voices in the anti-gay movement.

Two of the biggest opponents of Prop. 22 have also gotten involved early. The Gill Action fund gave $150,000 to the Equality California Issues PAC in February and March. The Fund is controlled by Tim Gill, the gay founder of Quark Express and a former member of the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans. The Colorado-based Gill gave a quarter million dollars to fight Prop. 22 in 2000, and is widely seen as a kind of pied piper for gay political donations.

Another openly-gay tech entrepreneur, GeoCities founder David Bohnett, gave $200,000 to the PAC in March. The group Equality for All has put in $815,000, which the Human Rights Campaign has donated $125,000. The National Center for Lesbian Rights added $50,000 in April.

So much money, so early, has caught the eye of analyst Megan Moore of the National Institute for Money in State Politics. She wrote a report on donations to gay marriage ballot measures in 2006 that found those campaigns relied more on individuals and less on organizations.

"The national groups, especially on the gay rights side, have been giving a lot of money," Moore said. "They had kind of fallen off the radar in 2006."

There are pair of factors that may play against the Protect Marriage side. In her report, Moore noted that gay rights groups turned a slight fundraising deficit in earlier years into a $14 million to $4 million advantage in 2006.

While each side has raised in the neighborhood of $1.7 million so far-not counting donations that have likely flowed in two weeks since the court decision-the pro-marriage side has more cash on hand. Much of the money raised by the Protect Marriage campaign, Pugno noted, went to getting signatures to qualify the initiative.

More worrisome for Pugno's cause is a Field Poll released Thursday morning. It found that likely California voters approved of allowing same sex couples to marry by a 51 percent to 42 percent margin. Depending on how the question is asked, between 51 percent and 54 percent oppose adding a ban on same sex marriage to the state constitution.

These numbers are the opposite of those found in a Los Angeles Times poll released last week. Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said that he has a lot of respect for the Times' polling team -- but that the results of his team's poll were pretty clear. Voters were still more likely to oppose gay marriage if they tended to be older, less educated, or more religious, conservative and rural.

But over 30 years of polling on the subject, all segments of voters have become more accepting of the idea, he said. Younger voters, meanwhile, make the biggest difference. Among those 18 to 29, 68 percent approve of same sex marriage. Among those 65 and older, it's just 38 percent.

Both sides see the high stakes as an advantage. Local officials will start signing off on same sex marriages by mid-June. When voters have their say in November, they will essentially be deciding whether to accept or reject these marriages. Prop. 22 had little direct effect, because same-sex couples still couldn't marry under state law.

Pugno said that Prop. 22 was only polling in the low 50s prior to the March 2000 election, but then did far better when voters actually cast ballots. He also said that many of the younger voters expected to come out this fall will be Hispanic and that Hispanics have been less supportive of same sex marriage than other groups.

His campaign will also try to emphasis how the California law is different from Massachusetts. That court ruling applied only to citizens of that state, and explicitly could not be "exported" to other states.

Finally, he said, he isn't concerned that his side could be swamped by a groundswell of support for likely-Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

"I think there is a greater chance of the amendment affecting the presidential election in California rather than the pres election affecting the initiative vote," Pugno said, though he added he doubt it would bring the state into play for Republican nominee John McCain.

But DiCamillo said Prop. 22 passed in a kind of "perfect storm" for conservatives: a low-turnout primary election that featured a tight race between GOP presidential candidates McCain and George W. Bush. The Democratic contest had been all but won by Al Gore by that point, he said.

Turnout in that election was 54 percent. But this fall, DiCamillo said, it will more likely hit at least the 76 percent recorded in the last general presidential election held in 2004.

"This will be a much bigger turnout with a much broader mix of voters of all stripes," DiCamillo said. "If anything, it will be as good of a representation of California as you'll ever get in an election."

Spending on gay marriage initiative likely to top $30 millionBy Malcolm Maclachlan (published Tuesday, May 27, 2008)California likely will play host this fall to an unprecedented political battle over gay marriage, as a looming ballot-initiative contest appears likely to force more than $30 million in total spending from the rival factions. Even though a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage has not yet made it onto the November ballot, both sides are already taking in big checks from familiar donors.

Adding fuel to the fire are a pair of dueling polls.

Last week, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll found a majority of voters opposed same-sex marriage. But a Field Poll released Wednesday appeared to show a sea change in public opinion on the issue, with roughly half of those surveyed in support of gay marriage. The poll suggests that a constitutional amendment could face a hard road this fall.

Andrew Pugno, an attorney for the Protect Marriage campaign, said his side plans on taking in between $10 million and $15 million -- "a little more than was raised and spent on Proposition 22," as he put it. That was the 2000 initiative stating "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It passed with 61 percent of the vote.

This would hardly be record-breaking money for California ballot initiatives, such as the $140 million fight over five amended tribal gaming compacts last year. Nonetheless, the potential spending is huge, Pugno said.

"These kinds of initiatives are different from an insurance industry or tribal gaming measure, where there's tons of money at stake," Pugno said. "Because it's a social issue, it tends to be more of a grassroots thing."

Steve Smith, campaign consultant for Equality for All, the main group on the "no" side of the proposed Protect Marriage initiative, said his group could raise as much as $20 million.

"We will have to at least match them dollar for dollar," Smith said.

Where's all this money going to come from? Oddly, the coalitions on each side look very similar in many ways. Each has a small number of extremely rich donors who were paying attention to this issue long before it was in the news on a regular basis, along with a few key organizations that largely sat out the last round of same-sex marriage fights in 2006. Each side is also taking in hundreds of smaller donations from individuals who will likely provide armies of ground troops working phones and walking precincts.

On the anti-same-sex marriage side, the donors are led by a pair of wealthy Southern California businessmen who are also evangelical Christians. Fieldstead & Co., the company owned by billionaire financier Howard Ahmanson, gave $400,000 in February and March to the committee behind The California Marriage Protection Act. Christian radio magnate Ed Atsinger has donated $12,500. Both live in Southern California. Each man gave $100,000 to back Prop. 22 in 2000.

Meanwhile, the Santa Ana-based National Organization for Marriage has packaged up $921,000 to pass the amendment. Colorado-based Focus on the Family has contributed $133,000. That group's founder and leader, James Dobson, is one of the leading voices in the anti-gay movement.

Two of the biggest opponents of Prop. 22 have also gotten involved early. The Gill Action fund gave $150,000 to the Equality California Issues PAC in February and March. The Fund is controlled by Tim Gill, the gay founder of Quark Express and a former member of the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans. The Colorado-based Gill gave a quarter million dollars to fight Prop. 22 in 2000, and is widely seen as a kind of pied piper for gay political donations.

Another openly-gay tech entrepreneur, GeoCities founder David Bohnett, gave $200,000 to the PAC in March. The group Equality for All has put in $815,000, which the Human Rights Campaign has donated $125,000. The National Center for Lesbian Rights added $50,000 in April.

So much money, so early, has caught the eye of analyst Megan Moore of the National Institute for Money in State Politics. She wrote a report on donations to gay marriage ballot measures in 2006 that found those campaigns relied more on individuals and less on organizations.

"The national groups, especially on the gay rights side, have been giving a lot of money," Moore said. "They had kind of fallen off the radar in 2006."

There are pair of factors that may play against the Protect Marriage side. In her report, Moore noted that gay rights groups turned a slight fundraising deficit in earlier years into a $14 million to $4 million advantage in 2006.

While each side has raised in the neighborhood of $1.7 million so far-not counting donations that have likely flowed in two weeks since the court decision-the pro-marriage side has more cash on hand. Much of the money raised by the Protect Marriage campaign, Pugno noted, went to getting signatures to qualify the initiative.

More worrisome for Pugno's cause is a Field Poll released Thursday morning. It found that likely California voters approved of allowing same sex couples to marry by a 51 percent to 42 percent margin. Depending on how the question is asked, between 51 percent and 54 percent oppose adding a ban on same sex marriage to the state constitution.

These numbers are the opposite of those found in a Los Angeles Times poll released last week. Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said that he has a lot of respect for the Times' polling team -- but that the results of his team's poll were pretty clear. Voters were still more likely to oppose gay marriage if they tended to be older, less educated, or more religious, conservative and rural.

But over 30 years of polling on the subject, all segments of voters have become more accepting of the idea, he said. Younger voters, meanwhile, make the biggest difference. Among those 18 to 29, 68 percent approve of same sex marriage. Among those 65 and older, it's just 38 percent.

Both sides see the high stakes as an advantage. Local officials will start signing off on same sex marriages by mid-June. When voters have their say in November, they will essentially be deciding whether to accept or reject these marriages. Prop. 22 had little direct effect, because same-sex couples still couldn't marry under state law.

Pugno said that Prop. 22 was only polling in the low 50s prior to the March 2000 election, but then did far better when voters actually cast ballots. He also said that many of the younger voters expected to come out this fall will be Hispanic and that Hispanics have been less supportive of same sex marriage than other groups.

His campaign will also try to emphasis how the California law is different from Massachusetts. That court ruling applied only to citizens of that state, and explicitly could not be "exported" to other states.

Finally, he said, he isn't concerned that his side could be swamped by a groundswell of support for likely-Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

"I think there is a greater chance of the amendment affecting the presidential election in California rather than the pres election affecting the initiative vote," Pugno said, though he added he doubt it would bring the state into play for Republican nominee John McCain.

But DiCamillo said Prop. 22 passed in a kind of "perfect storm" for conservatives: a low-turnout primary election that featured a tight race between GOP presidential candidates McCain and George W. Bush. The Democratic contest had been all but won by Al Gore by that point, he said.

Turnout in that election was 54 percent. But this fall, DiCamillo said, it will more likely hit at least the 76 percent recorded in the last general presidential election held in 2004.

"This will be a much bigger turnout with a much broader mix of voters of all stripes," DiCamillo said. "If anything, it will be as good of a representation of California as you'll ever get in an election."

JURIST Guest Columnist Douglas NeJaime of UCLA School of Law says that the California same-sex marriage ruling is not merely about the right to marry the person one loves, but it is also about accommodating the demographic reality of lesbians and gay men who commit to one another, raise children, and form families...

The California Supreme Court recently became the second state high court to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Although the court reached the same result as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, it did so based on radically different reasoning. While the Massachusetts court conceptualized marriage in terms of self-fulfillment, the California court focused on the relationships formed through marriage, positioning marriage as about others.

In its 2003 landmark decision, the Massachusetts court focused on the individuals in the relationship, making marriage about the self. As the court put it, “[b]ecause it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.”

The California court, on the other hand, concentrated on the familial relationships embodied by marriage and society’s interest in those relationships. The court carefully identified the “substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own – and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family.” To the court, the issue before it was not merely one about marriage – the relationship between two adults seeking self-fulfillment – but was also, and more centrally, one about family – the supportive kinship networks among adults and children. Indeed, Chief Justice George’s majority opinion used the word “family” almost 150 times. The claim to marriage by lesbians and gay men had transformed from the individualistic, self-defining right that carried the day in Massachusetts in 2003 to the more far-reaching, communitarian, family-based right that prevailed in California in 2008.

What had changed? Rhetoric and reality.

The Massachusetts court rejected social conservative arguments based on notions of the optimal husband-wife, father-mother household. The California court went further, actually reconfiguring those arguments to support same-sex couples. While social conservative groups in the California litigation argued in favor of restrictions on marriage based on the significance of families and children, this exact rationale served as the basis for the court’s decision against the marriage restriction. “Family values,” it seems, have been neutered, and the rhetoric of “family values” has switched sides.

The court’s new focus on the family was underscored by a novel argument made by the state of California. The state, including the Attorney General and the Governor, attempted to divest the name “marriage” of its symbolic qualities, arguing that no difference exists between marriage and domestic partnership. In fact, the state argued that California could do away with the term “marriage” altogether, stripping it from the relationships of different-sex couples. The court, however, rejected the state’s arguments, agreeing instead with both the gay rights groups and the social conservative groups as to the importance of the status of marriage and its significance for family relationships. The state, it seems, was missing the point – family.

The court comprehensively reconfigured the notion of family so as not merely to accommodate but actually celebrate the relationships formed between same-sex couples and between those couples and their children. First, the court established that when two people commit to one another and rely on each other for mutual support, they form a family that is socially vital and worthy of official recognition. The court explained that a core element of the fundamental right to marry “is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships.” By forming relationships characterized by mutual commitment and support, same-sex couples are serving as productive members of society and furthering the societal interest in family stability.

Next, the court situated parenting and children – significant components of “family values” discourse – as gay-positive. As the court declared, society “has an overriding interest in the welfare of children, and the role marriage plays in facilitating a stable family setting in which children may be raised by two loving parents unquestionably furthers the welfare of children and society.” The mother-father family had become the two-parent family, and children had become central players in the families of same-sex couples.

At the same time that gay rights advocates and the court itself appropriated “family values” discourse to the benefit of same-sex couples, the rhetorical move reflects a more grounded factual recognition of the lives of many lesbians and gay men. They form families, they raise children, and they will continue to do so regardless of the outcome of marriage litigation. As Chief Justice George pointed out in his opinion, the Williams Institute has documented that at the time of the 2000 census, same-sex couples in California were raising more than 70,000 children. Indeed, the Chief Justice noted that, according to the Williams Institute, almost 30% of same-sex couples in California were raising children.

The picture of the gay and lesbian population documented by the Williams Institute, and recognized by the court, is a far cry from caricatured images of single, swinging gays living in urban enclaves, far from children and respectable families. The court’s decision is not merely about the right to marry the person whom one loves, but it is also about a realistic, practical accommodation of the demographic reality of the lives of lesbians and gay men, who are committing to one another, raising children, and forming families.

Douglas NeJaime is the Williams Institute Law Teaching Fellow at UCLA School of Law

This article by HRC Legal Director Lara Schwartz on the California Supreme Court marriage decision was originally published by Legal Times (Click here to download the PDF ):

Last week the California Supreme Court rolled in a 121-page blackboard and taught Americans a lesson in bread-and-butter constitutional principles.

The court ruled that the state could not constitutionally maintain a legal distinction between gay and lesbian couples and their heterosexual counterparts. Noting that marriage has long been considered a fundamental right, the court restated the bedrock constitutional principle that in order to deny access to a fundamental right, not only must the state have a compelling interest but the denial must be necessary to achieve that interest. The court also concluded that crafting separate but purportedly equal legal statuses for families headed by gay and straight couples violates the state’s equal protection clause, in part because marriage alone gives the utmost dignity and respect to a family.

The state cannot deny a fundamental right absent a compelling interest. The state cannot create distinctions in legal status among classifications of people absent a compelling interest.

These same principles have laid the foundation for hundreds of state and federal cases in the past several decades. By the conclusion of Con­sti­tu­tional Law I, every law student is familiar with them.

Yet critics of the May 15 decision are saying that it is a radical departure from prior law. It is not. It is simply a departure from prior resistance to acknowledging that gay people are equal to everyone else.

If gay people — and the families that thousands in California have created, nurtured, and loved — were not equal to their heterosexual neighbors, then a constitutional mandate of equal protection and fundamental rights could be considered a departure from the settled principles the court claimed to espouse. But once you understand — as the Amer­i­can Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and every mainstream social welfare, mental health, and children’s welfare group have done — that gay and lesbian couples love each other as much, live as well, parent as well, and support each other as responsibly as anyone else, In re Marriage Cases becomes the easiest Constitutional Law exam answer ever: Apply strict scrutiny, and place all citizens on equal footing with one another.

IN JUDICIAL HANDS

The critics of the California decision are therefore wrong when they argue that the court read a right to “gay marriage” into the state constitution or redefined what marriage is. The court did not create a new right, but rather recognized that a previously excluded group of people possessed an already existing right. Coming to this conclusion simply required the justices to conclude that there is nothing about gay people that disqualifies them from the rights guaranteed to all citizens of California by the state constitution.

Critics have also accused the court of usurping the power of the legislature and the people to determine whether gay and lesbian couples should be considered equal under state marriage laws. This argument is both politically inaccurate and legally incorrect.

Before the court issued its decision last week, the California Legislature had twice passed a bill legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. Citing the previous ballot initiative and the pending court challenge to the initiative, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger twice refused to sign the bill, saying that either the voters or the courts would decide the issue. In other words, the legislative branch attempted to act, and the executive deferred instead to the judiciary.

The political argument isn’t passing muster in Massachusetts either. After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared that the state could not bar same-sex marriage in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003), the state legislature failed to pass an amendment reversing the decision. In the next election cycle, the voters overwhelmingly re-elected legislators who voted against that amendment and replaced several anti-marriage-equality members with supporters of marriage equality. Following the will of the electorate, the state legislature has reinforced the court’s ruling.

Yet some still find it convenient to assail judicial action in favor of same-sex marriage as somehow unauthorized, because that garners suspicion among laypeople.

The charge that the California court has usurped political power is also flawed as a matter of law. When the court acknowledges — as the facts demand —that gay and lesbian couples are equal to any others, it is both nonsensical and unconstitutional to demand that those couples pull together a political majority before they will actually be treated equally. Nowhere in the California Constitution can you find a gay exception to fundamental rights. To write such an exception into the document is results-oriented and, to use the phrase favored by critics of the decision, “activist.”

WHAT IS NEW

If In re Marriage Cases represents an embrace of, rather than a departure from, well-settled constitutional principles, then why does it still feel so new? And why, after years of outright losses since Goodridge and halfway decisions in which courts fabricated gay exceptions to the nonmajoritarian principle of equal rights in order to “punt” to legislatures, did the California Supreme Court rule as it did?

No matter how pure and enduring the constitutional principles that direct its decisions, no court operates in a vacuum. As Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote, courts “should not be ignorant as judges of what we know as men.” The justices in California know gay people and their families. And knowing them, the court could not possibly conclude that excluding them from equal treatment under law is necessary to further any state interest.

Four years after Massachusetts granted the first marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in the United States, we know that doing so did not “rewrite” the marriage laws, change the character of marriage, or affect in any way the state’s interest in promoting marriage as a stable institution for nurturing children and providing social and financial stability.

For opponents of gay and lesbian equality, it is uncomfortable — and strategically unwise — to concede that the case did not turn on a novel or inappropriate interpretation of the law, but rather a recognition of facts that conflict with their own views and values. These people believe that gay people must audition before the majority to secure their human rights because their actions or very nature render them unfit to claim these rights as people.

That is a political decision. Whether gay and lesbian families are guaranteed equal dignity under law is not.

Voters also back a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions, a new Times/KTLA survey shows.By Cathleen DeckerLos Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 23, 2008

By bare majorities, Californians reject the state Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriages and back a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at the November ballot that would outlaw such unions, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found.

But the survey also suggested that the state is moving closer to accepting nontraditional marriages, which could create openings for supporters of same-sex marriage as the campaign unfolds.

More than half of Californians said gay relationships were not morally wrong, that they would not degrade heterosexual marriages and that all that mattered was that a relationship be loving and committed, regardless of gender.

Overall, the proportion of Californians who back either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples has remained fairly constant over the years. But the generational schism is pronounced. Those under 45 were less likely to favor a constitutional amendment than their elders and were more supportive of the court's decision to overturn the state's current ban on gay marriage. They also disagreed more strongly than their elders with the notion that gay relationships threatened traditional marriage.

The results of the survey set up an intriguing question for the fall campaign: Will the younger, more live-and-let-live voters mobilized by likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama doom the gay marriage ban? Or will conservatives drawn to the polls by the amendment boost the odds for the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain?

Either way, the poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters. But because ballot measures on controversial topics often lose support during the course of a campaign, strategists typically want to start out well above the 50% support level.

"Although the amendment to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage is winning by a small majority, this may not bode well for the measure," said Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus.

The politically volatile issue leaped into the forefront last week after the court made its judgment in a case that stemmed from San Francisco's unsuccessful effort in 2004 to allow gay marriage in the city. The court's decision, on a 4-3 vote by judges largely appointed by Republican governors, came eight years after Californians overwhelmingly banned gay marriage through a ballot measure, Proposition 22.

The court's verdict threw the issue forward until November, when Californians are expected to be asked to amend the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. An affirmative vote on the amendment would reinstate the ban and lead to more litigation over the issue.

Before the court took action, opponents of same-sex marriage already had submitted more than 1 million signatures to the secretary of state's office to put the matter on the November ballot. Secretary of State Debra Bowen has said she will determine its fate by mid-June, but the backers are believed to have collected enough signatures to qualify.

Asking for a delay

Thursday, supporters of the proposed amendment asked the court to place its decision on hold until after the election. Failure to do so "risks legal havoc and uncertainty," lawyers for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund argued, noting that same-sex marriages entered into between now and November would be under a legal cloud if voters approved the ban. Court experts, however, say it is unlikely the justices would agree to such a lengthy delay in implementing their ruling.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has vetoed two bills sanctioning gay marriage, has said that he respects the court's decision and that he will not support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Californians were split on his stance, with 45% agreeing and 46% disagreeing.

The governor, who in his nearly five years in office has often butted heads with his GOP colleagues, was once again on the opposite side of most in his party: Nearly 7 in 10 Republicans disagreed with his views on the court decision and the amendment.

Becky Espinoza of Kerman, an agricultural town west of Fresno, said that if the amendment made the ballot, she would vote for it. But she acknowledged some ambivalence about the matter coming before voters at all.

"I just don't believe a man and a man should be married," said the 57-year-old Republican. "How can I put this -- it's just not right. I was brought up very old-fashioned."

Even within her own family, however, there are differences of opinion. A younger daughter, she said, feels "there's nothing wrong with that."

"To kids nowadays, it's like 'Oh well.' Maybe it is 'Oh well.' They see it. We didn't see it. It was one of those in-the-closet things."

On the opposite side is Lena Neal of Perris, who said she supported the court's decision and would vote against an amendment. Neal, a Democrat, based her views on the experiences of an elderly family member, who she said was part of a decades-long same-sex partnership. When one of them entered the hospital, she said, the other was not allowed to visit -- that benefit was restricted to family members.

"It's their right," she said of gay marriage. "They're humans."

Indeed, the poll found that views on gay marriage were greatly influenced by personal connections. Of those who said they knew a friend, a family member or a co-worker who was gay, nearly half approved of the court's ruling -- more than twice the proportion among those who said they were not acquainted with a gay person.

The divide was as stark when it came to the proposed constitutional amendment: 70% of voters who said they did not know a gay person would vote for it, a position taken by just 49% of voters who said they knew a gay person.

The poll, under Pinkus' direction, interviewed 834 Californians, including 705 registered voters, on Tuesday and Wednesday. The margin of sampling error is 3 percentage points in either direction overall and 4 points for registered voters. Margins were larger for demographic subgroups.

The poll found the state polarized when it came to gay marriage. In most surveys, majority views are somewhat ambivalent -- but on this issue they were sharply drawn. More than 4 in 10 Californians said they strongly disapproved of the court's decision, while almost 3 in 10 strongly approved. Smaller groups described their views as lukewarm.

Generally, the poll found consistency between views on the court decision and the proposed amendment. Overall, Californians opposed the court's view by a 52%-41% gap. The strongest opposition came from Republicans and self-described conservatives. Married respondents, those without college degrees, senior citizens, white evangelical Christians and those in suburban Southern California were also strongly opposed.

Those same groups were also among the strongest backers of the proposed amendment.

Most supportive of the court decision were liberals -- more than 7 in 10 of whom favored the ruling -- Democratic men and Democratic women, whites with college degrees and Bay Area residents.

Majority support -- if barely -- came from the two political groups whose backing generally spells success in California: The state's largest party, Democrats, backed it by a 55%-39% margin, and the fastest-growing political group, independents, supported it 51% to 40%.

Yet support for the ruling did not necessarily lead to opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment, and vice versa. Democrats and independents narrowly backed the amendment despite their support for the court action. Democratic men favored the ruling but were split on the amendment. Democratic women, meanwhile, approved of both the court decision and the amendment.

Effect on the election?

The interaction between the amendment and the presidential election is difficult to divine six months from election day. Among the reasons is that the court put itself at odds with the candidates -- neither Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Obama of Illinois, nor Republican McCain, a senator from Arizona, has backed gay marriage. All have sided instead with civil unions that would ensure benefits for same-sex partners.

For the candidates, the confluence of the gay marriage issue and the presidential election represents risk. For the Democratic nominee, the party's traditional allegiance with the gay community could lead to pressure on the candidate to embrace gay marriage -- perhaps alienating more moderate voters here and elsewhere.

McCain, meanwhile, will be pinched between the party's religious base, which is strongly in favor of the amendment, and the independent voters who generally recoil from social issue battles but whom McCain needs in order to win.

Some leeway

The poll suggested that the candidates may have a little leeway: Only 1 in 4 registered voters said they would vote only for a candidate who agreed with their own position on marriage. Almost 6 in 10 said they could vote for a candidate with whom they disagreed -- suggesting that the issue was far from the top of most voters' agendas.

Responding to a separate question, only 10% of registered voters said that gay marriage was the most important issue facing the state, although more than 5 in 10 voters characterized it as important, just not the most important. Another third of voters said it was not important at all.

Among those who felt it was the most important, more than 6 in 10 were conservatives or those who consider themselves part of the Republican religious base. They were overwhelmingly voting for McCain, the poll found.

But those who felt it was either not important, or not the most important issue facing California, were siding with a Democratic candidate over McCain.

An Episcopal church in California plans to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples beginning mid-June.

All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, one of the largest congregations in the denomination, adopted last Thursday the "Resolution on Marriage Equality" in response to a California Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay "marriage."

The 125-year-old congregation "will treat equally all couples presenting themselves for the rite of marriage," said the Rev. Canon J. Edwin Bacon Jr. in an announcement.

"I am honored to serve a church where the leadership demonstrates such stirring courage to move beyond lip service about embodying God's inclusive love to actually committing our faith community to the practice of marriage equality," Bacon commented, according to Episcopal News Service.

On May 15 in a 4-3 ruling, the state high court struck down a ban that prohibited same-sex couples from "marrying." The justices ruled that “domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage."

After the high court cleared the way for same-sex "marriage" in a decision that was a blow to Christian and pro-family groups, churches were faced with the pressing question of whether they must recognize and officiate gay weddings.

California has an estimated 92,000 same-sex couples.

Episcopal Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles is establishing a task force to help clarify the impact of the court's decision on local congregations.

While many bishops in The Episcopal Church support the rights of gays and lesbians, the denomination has not "yet made" the decision to bless same-sex unions, Bishop Jim Mathes of San Diego noted.

"We are in the midst of a challenging but vital conversation about holy relationships in this diocese and indeed across the [Anglican] Communion," Mathes said.

The Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism, had passed a resolution in September 2007 saying they will "exercise restraint" in authorizing public rites of the blessing of same-sex unions. Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori had made it clear, however, that the church will not retreat from the "full inclusion" of gays and lesbians but is willing to "pause" as the Anglican Communion remains divided on the issue of homosexuality.

Meanwhile, Bacon of All Saints Church believes the latest pro-gay move by his congregation "aligns" them with "the Scriptures' mandate to make God's love tangible by 'doing justice and loving mercy.'"

But Richard J. Mouw, president of the conservative Protestant Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena and a friend to Bacon, says All Saints' decision to perform same-sex weddings is "a very serious mistake."

By linking gay "marriage" to issues of "justice and mercy" rather than moral standards, All Saints restricts dialogue with people who have "legitimate questions" about their definition of marriage, Mouw said, according to Pasadena Star News .

"It should be clear to everyone that he's (Bacon) out of step with his global Anglican communion and fostering what many of us sincerely believe is a real threat to the social fabric," Mouw noted.

The global Anglican Communion maintains that homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Many would have us believe marriage is an unchanged stable foundation of society. Perhaps we should look at marriage a bit closer.

The first *institutional* codes for marriage were written in the Hammurabi Code (1795 – 1750 BC).

The idea of 'romantic' love leading to marriage is a recent creation of Western civilization. Previously marriage was a matter of economics.

American Puritan families were living off the land and self-sufficient. Parents kept control over their children, not only by handing down the family craft and source of income, but by dowries and inheritance of the family lands. Kinship ties through intermarriage between first cousins and even between brothers and sisters were used to cement political and economic relationships. [link]

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public. [link]

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed (in 1563) that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, as well as the role of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era. [link] [link] [link]

In Catholicism, the Council of Trent made the validity of marriage dependent upon its being performed before an ordained member of the clergy and two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life." [link]

In many jurisdictions, the civil marriage ceremony may take place during the religious marriage ceremony, although they are theoretically and legally distinct. In most American states, the marriage may be officiated by a priest, minister, rabbi or other religious authority, and in such a case the religious authority acts simultaneously as an agent of the state. In some countries, such as France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Argentina, Japan and Russia, it is necessary to be married by the state separate from (usually before) any religious ceremony, with the state ceremony being the legally binding one. Some states allow civil marriages in circumstances which are not allowed by many religions, such as same-sex marriages or civil unions. [link]

Polygamous marriage, in which a person takes more than one spouse, is accepted in a majority of global social traditions, though it is far less common than monogamy. Africa has the highest rate of polygamy in the world. In Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple. [link]

In 2004, the American Anthropological Association released this statement:The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

FeedBurner FeedCount

Labels

About Me

As a same sex marriage activist for almost a decade in NY. I hope this site will open the dialogue about the topic and keep people informed.This is a personal profile and blog. Articles I post here do not necessarily represent my own views, and views I do express are stated in a personal capacity and do not represent the position of any organization with which I might be affiliated.